Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Case No. 56/18 of 1985, decided on 11th June, 1985.
‑‑‑S. 4‑‑Adverse remarks in A.C.R.‑‑Appeal for expunction‑‑Remarks "Had unsavoury reputation"‑‑Fully justified on basis of enquiry report‑ Tribunal finding no reason to differ‑‑Appeal, in circumstance, dismissed.
Muhammad Ashraf Hijazi for Appellant.
A.G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondent.
‑S. Mohammad Qasim Wasti, Tehsildar, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, as respondent.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that appeal be accepted and remaining remarks i.e. "unsavoury reputation" record in the A.C.R. for the period from 21‑7‑1981 to 12‑12‑1981, be removed and expunged from the service record of the appellant.
3. Brief facts of the case are that in the year 1981 when the appellant was posted as Tehsildar Chakwal, the following adverse remarks were recorded in his A. C. R. for the period from 21‑7‑1981 to 12‑12‑1981:‑
"Persistent complaints of this Officer's liaison with the property swindlers led to an enquiry, on the basis of which he was transferred and is being charge‑sheeted. Had unsavoury reputation."
The result of the inquiry went in favour of the appellant and charges were considered unfounded, therefore, the appeal of the appellant before the learned Member, Board of Revenue was partially accepted and following remarks were expunged:
"Persistent complaints of this officer's liaison with property swindlers led to an enquiry on the basis of which he was transferred and being charge‑sheeted."
However, remarks "unsavoury reputation" were maintained. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the word unsavoury reputation suffered from inherent contradiction because the main charge which lead to the same, stood unproved against the appellant and he was exonerated from the same. He has made a grievance that the learned Member with matured experience should have expunged these two remarks as these were inconsistent with the facts.
6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has adopted the comments submitted by the Board of Revenue through the Deputy Secretary (Revenue), Board of Revenue, and has submitted that the competent authority considered the representation of the officer and expunged the remarks relating to the inquiry but other remarks were independent in nature and were allowed to stand. It has been vehemently argued that the general reputation of the appellant is an independent issue and has no relevancy with an exoneration in a departmental inquiry. Learned District Attorney has prayed that appeal be dismissed as being without any force.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and have carefully perused the detailed report submitted in the case of the appellant when he was charged with certain irregu larities so committed by him during his tenure of service. We reproduce the concluding paragraph of the inquiry conducted by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (G), Rawalpindi, as under:
"The defendant has mainly relied on his report given at Exh. P.H. which was forwarded by Tehsildar to A.C. Chakwal on 3‑9‑1981 i.e. one day before the D.C. Jhelum issued written instructions to pend the mutations on the back of the D.O. letter received by him from Member, Board of Revenue which is given at Exh. P.J. Thus, he takes the plea that he had sanctioned the mutations in compliance with the instructions received from the P. A. V. C. and that he was never given verbal or written instructions to pend these mutations but as I have already discussed, the plea taken by the defendant did not seem very plausible and convincing. The logic of circumstances also goes against him. The prosecution evidence when pieced together bit by bit goes on to prove that the Tehsildar was not moving with clean hands. His conduct was mysterious and he tried to wriggle out of the situation by making various entries in the register for consignment of mutations. Thus, it is my considered opinion that though the prosecution has not been able to show by any documentary proof that the mutations were not sanctioned on 16‑8‑1981, yet the circumstantial evidence goes against the accused officer and thus I hold that the charge of antedation of these 14 mutations by Mr. Mohammad Qasim Wasti, Tehsildar, Chakwal is proved."
Learned Commissioner has fully highlighted these aspects of the case by submitting to the Secretary (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore that his remarks were based on facts that the charge of antedation of fourteen mutations had been proved in the inquiry report, hence the dismissal of the officer was recommended. The Officer was probably exonerated because of certain drawbacks of presentation in the inquiry report. On balance, he got to off the hook largely by default in Enquiry Officers building up of the case rather than his own innocence. In this manner, learned Commissioner has fully justified that the appellant had unsavoury reputation during his tenure of service under the said Commissioner.
8. In view of the above, we do not find any reason to differ with the observation of the learned Commissioner as well as of learned Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, and proceed to dismiss the appeal as being without any merit. There will be no order as to costs.
A. E.
Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer